shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Whoops Grendels accidentally trolled for the wrong side!
You just proved his point there G. He wasn't talking about the Ricoh.
Stop boring everyone. It's worth what anyone pays for it - from £1 to £100 million. No buyers are banging on the door are there?
The taxpayer will be more impacted by the £14 million loan than the sale of a commercial property. If its given away - no impact if its sold for £60 million - no impact
Was it the council who did the valuation or was it done for them and would they have seen the YB ones?Godiva said:As the council is part owner of ACL I don't think their valuation can be considered independent. The value of the mortgage is what another bank will be prepared to pay.
Was it the council who did the valuation or was it done for them and would they have seen the YB ones?
Was it the council who did the valuation or was it done for them and would they have seen the YB ones?
I don't know. As OSB says - not all the facts are known. There's no transparency.
Stop boring everyone. It's worth what anyone pays for it - from £1 to £100 million. No buyers are banging on the door are there?
Was it the council who did the valuation or was it done for them and would they have seen the YB ones?
Well If this helps ,fisher was on CWR saying what trouble ACL were In ,then a week later he was expessing how terrible It was that the bank had sent the auditors in . whether that means It was their valuation I'll leave to you
Was it the council who did the valuation or was it done for them and would they have seen the YB ones?
If that was said ....... how did the bank have the authority to send the auditors in (thats a general question wingy not directed at you as such)? Given that the accounts were due to be filed 28/02/13 for year ended 31/05/12 for ACL then I suspect the ACL auditors were already in. The auditors used by ACL are called Dains, the 2 reports being discussed December 2012 were prepared by Deloittes and Price Waterhouse I believe. The bank may have sent investigating accountants in certainly, a cost to be paid by ACL (and not cheap), but they were not the auditors. That said I have recollection that it was CBRE that did the valuations and Deloittes & PWC that investigated the business plans.... but like I said I could be wrong
It shouldn't be forgotten that at the moment there is no certainty that a judicial review will actually take place. It is up to SISU to put a proper case together and present this to the court who have agreed to listen to it.
This, however will not be cheap. SISU may decide, as they are hemorrhaging money on renting a stadium that nobody attends, paying for club merchandise that nobody buys and paying fees to advise on a stadium they are never going to build, that paying the costs of a court case they are never going to win is a step too far.
If I have a mortgage of £14M and I reschedule my loan I still owe £14M.
If I can't reschedule my loan, I have to move out and if there is only one buyer willing to pay, say £6.5M, my bank may consider that offer as it is better than nothing.
Is the value of the loan £14M or £6.5M, because in my book it's the former. In reality that's how the business that is called Sisu makes it's money.
CCFC ACL HIGGS CCC all loose out as collateral damage.
If Sisu gain the Ricoh or build a new ground CCFC will not own it so we as a club are back where we have been already. Namely renting.
It shouldn't be forgotten that at the moment there is no certainty that a judicial review will actually take place. It is up to SISU to put a proper case together and present this to the court who have agreed to listen to it.
This, however will not be cheap. SISU may decide, as they are hemorrhaging money on renting a stadium that nobody attends, paying for club merchandise that nobody buys and paying fees to advise on a stadium they are never going to build, that paying the costs of a court case they are never going to win is a step too far.
The JR case has been brought by ARVO, SBS&L and CCFC H. It may be that SISU or ARVO pay the costs but I suspect only as loans to SBS&L. Otherwise where do they get the tax relief available for defending the good name of CCFC?
SISU may decide, as they are hemorrhaging money on renting a stadium that nobody attends, paying for club merchandise that nobody buys and paying fees to advise on a stadium they are never going to build, that paying the costs of a court case they are never going to win is a step too far.
If SISU do go, WHO WOULD BUY A CLUB THAT THE FANS HAD KILLED?
The forum is made up of all types of people - some old, some young, some wise, some stupid, some strong, some frail, some dishonest ,some Angels. What should be gluing us all together is one thing in common - love of our club.
The threat of the owners withdrawing support is real, but not what worries me most.
Despite the wide variation of background that makes up the forum - it gels together into a self-fulfilling "consensus". It may be that consensus is formed from the opinions of the "not too bright" but it becomes accepted as the norm.
The statement above typifies that consensus.
The consensus HOPES the MEANS justifies the END, the MEANS being "starve them out" the END being "SISU out".
But my fear is the MEANS that will kill us not SISU at all!
SISU have carried on funding the club - which is all you can ask of any owner.
If SISU do go, WHO WOULD BUY A CLUB THAT THE FANS HAD KILLED?
The taxpayer will be more impacted by the £14 million loan than the sale of a commercial property. If its given away - no impact if its sold for £60 million - no impact
SISU have carried on funding the club - which is all you can ask of any owner.
If SISU do go, WHO WOULD BUY A CLUB THAT THE FANS HAD KILLED?
The forum is made up of all types of people - some old, some young, some wise, some stupid, some strong, some frail, some dishonest ,some Angels. What should be gluing us all together is one thing in common - love of our club.
The threat of the owners withdrawing support is real, but not what worries me most.
Despite the wide variation of background that makes up the forum - it gels together into a self-fulfilling "consensus". It may be that consensus is formed from the opinions of the "not too bright" but it becomes accepted as the norm.
The statement above typifies that consensus.
The consensus HOPES the MEANS justifies the END, the MEANS being "starve them out" the END being "SISU out".
But my fear is the MEANS that will kill us not SISU at all!
SISU have carried on funding the club - which is all you can ask of any owner.
If SISU do go, WHO WOULD BUY A CLUB THAT THE FANS HAD KILLED?
It seems to me that most of the funding that SISU have provided recently has gone on administration, legal and stadium consultancy fees - that is not funding a football club, that is funding an aggressive, predatory and self serving hedge fund.
If SISU did go, the club might be bought by someone with an interest in trying to make money from the onfield activities at the football club rather than using it as a tool to distress other businesses.
Out of curiosity Grego, which category of poster do you believe you fall into?
To be fair SISU seem to be doing a far better job financially trying to distress themselves, whilst having little affect on ACL, who seemingly appear to be doing far better since SISU stormed out of the Ricoh.We've been down the no one will buy us road before yet other people do seem interested as shown when we were in admin. Assuming SISU don't liquidate us out of spite then I thinkthe worst case scenario would see a consortium of local business / wealthy fans grouping together to take over the club. Of course this would most likley mean there was very little cash to inject and the club has to be self sustaining but surely that's possible. If they moved back to the Rioch with SISU gone you have to think there would be decent crowds and if FFP does what it is suppsoed to do we should have more income that most in our division due to a larger fanbase. Get back into the championship at some point and who knows what will happen. A bit of success might see crowds shooting up, more money to spend while being self sustaining.
I'm sure if someone had the time they could look at the figures available and take a guess if we could be self sustaining but I don't think it follows that if SISU go there's no club.
To be fair SISU seem to be doing a far better job financially trying to distress themselves, whilst having little affect on ACL, who seemingly appear to be doing far better since SISU stormed out of the Ricoh.
If ACL is doing far better without the club and all the customers it brought around every other week, then they should help finance the new stadium to make sure the club doesn't come back to disrupt their improved business case.
If ACL is doing far better without the club and all the customers it brought around every other week, then they should help finance the new stadium to make sure the club doesn't come back to disrupt their improved business case.
Re Godiva and Grendel above,
CCC cant reap the rewards of both because SISU have already stated they cant do business with CCC, so will build outside of the city boundaries.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?